Do you need a model release if ......?

[68degrees]

If you take a photo of someone, frame it and sell it to someone else to hang on their wall, do you need to get a model release from the subject?

 

[jordanstarr]

No. If it's in the public sphere you're safe. However, there are some stipulations around editorial/commercial content that you will have to explore in the USA.

 

[Matus]

If you take a photo of someone, frame it and sell it to someone else to hang on their wall, do you need to get a model release from the subject?

You would need it in most (if not all) European countries. This part of law is often not well-enough defined, so if you really plan to sell the photos, you better have the model release. Again - this would be Europe.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

In the USA, no. Model releases are not required here for either fine art photography or photojournalism. As Matus mentioned above, you may need them in other countries.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Let's take a look...

 

[68degrees]

Thanks guys for personally sharing your knowledge and experience. Beats googling. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

This comes up on a regular basis.

The responses always include a tremendous amount of paranoid drivel quoting one another and a limited number of web-sites. This is NOT to say that you never need a model release, but most 'fine art' in most countries doesn't. This includes most of Europe. Nor do you need model releases for news photography. How would it work if you did? And how do you define 'news'?

EDIT: Did not wish to brand others as slavering cowards, as it's not (yet) true on this thread.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You decide..

"These days, even editorial clients are requiring releases — and releases using their specific forms — with more and more frequency, so you need to check the terms of your agreements with your clients and stock houses to see what is required".

http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.UN4IM6wsuZY

I'm always amazed at the depths of idiocy our society produces. That's not directed at you, PMK, but at these companies. Requiring releases is un-necessary, but would be doable...except for the need to carry a box of forms so you can make the poor sap you just photographed sign one for every company that you might, maybe, sell the image to.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm always amazed at the depths of idiocy our society produces. That's not directed at you, PMK, but at these companies. Requiring releases is un-necessary, but would be doable...except for the need to carry a box of forms so you can make the poor sap you just photographed sign one for every company that you might, maybe, sell the image to.

EVERY poor sap. In multiple languages.

There's the real world, and there's ASMP's lawyers' world.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The bottom line is - do you have the money to defend yourself in court if necessary? Photographers get sued over taking a photo of the "wrong" person. You may win a suit, but at what $$ cost. It's much easier to ask and then trade a release for a pint of the subject. It's also great presenting a print to the subject - and looking at the response. I often take photos and get a release after the photo was taken. I usually get a release once explaining my purpose.

It's just the way I choose to work. Others work differently.

The bottom line is -- is life long enough? The more people there are who think they need model releases when they don't, the more frivolous and vexatious law suits there will be by those who believe them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DNG]

I think the OP by 68degrees was about selling a photo with a person in it to a person to hang it on wall of a home? although the "Where" was not noted. I assume a wall at home, of in their private office.

Although all the other answers are enlightening about "Professional" agents and connected photographers. Which I don't think the OP was talking about.

It would be like me buying a Street Photo from Helen Hill for my wall. Is how I read the OP.

So, NO!.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger; I know you have a legal background. Today in most big US cities, because of the digital tsunami, people are very photo savvy. If working with the intent to publish or hang the work I watch my 6 as I live in a very litigious society. I've seen enough of this kind of thing having been involved in one suit - and being challenged legally (usually by a lawyer or family member) once or twice a year, I get a release.

What sort of society do you want to live in? Because getting unnecessary model releases is not creating the kind of society I'd want to live in. These people aren't 'photo savvy'. They're bringing frivolous and vexatious suits, and as long as these suits are entertained, it's going to get worse.

Then again, even in the days when I was reading law, many years ago, a friend of my father's, a lawyer in the United States, gave him a present to give me. It's a little statue of a man with a full bottomed wig and a book under his arm labelled LAW. Engraved on the pedestal is SUE THE B*STARDS -- although, of course, as we weren't dealing with quite such snivelling wimps as we have today, there was an 'A' where I have put an asterisk to evade the electronic censor. The American fondness for frivolous and vexatious lawsuits was one of the reasons I left the USA. I was never on the receiving end of one: I just regarded them as a symptom of a society in which I did not care to live.

See Acts of the Apostles, IX, v, last sentence (King James version).

Cheers,

R.

 

[user237428934]

This comes up on a regular basis.

The responses always include a tremendous amount of paranoid drivel quoting one another and a limited number of web-sites. This is NOT to say that you never need a model release, but most 'fine art' in most countries doesn't. This includes most of Europe. Nor do you need model releases for news photography. How would it work if you did? And how do you define 'news'?

And your response is always that following a law is paranoid. You may not like a law, when you don't follow it, you take a risk. Like crossing a street during red light.

The good news is that publishing a person on the internet without release is not so risky where I live. First of all this person or a relative has to find the photo on the internet. Very unlikely. Then the person has to dislike that the photo is on the internet. 50:50 I think. Then they have to mandate a lawyer. Maybe this is too much effort for most. And when a adhortatory letter from a lawyer hits you the costs for you are less then a new Biogon. So the risk should be manageable. This only applies when you don't try to make money with that photo.

Why I would pay and didn't go to court? Because I'm no artist, I don't pay into the social security insurance for artists and I didn't have any art exhibitions. No judge would follow my argument that I published that photo as "fine art".

 

[68degrees]

I was at a craft show today more like a flea market with vendors have tables. I saw some oil paintiings there, I saw handcrafts, quilters, hand made jewelry, drawings.

I spoke to one guy, a vendor, and asked him how much it costs to have a table. He said $70 for three days Fri Sat Sun. I didnt ask anymore questions until he volunteered "Thats not bad considering how much money you can make" .

I take that as an invitation to ask about how much money you can make. So i did. He said he made $1000 last weekend selling scented candles ($20 selling price) that he makes himself.He spends 4 days making them, ebaying etc and 3 days at the table he rents.

I did some quick math and wondered if some nice framed pictures. (i like to make frames woodshop out back), or just cardboard matted photos in the $10 to $15 dollar range would move.

I started asking questions in my mind like the one I posed for this thread. People at a craft fair walking up and liking some photos and buying presents for friends or have a nice photo that strikes them as interesting and hanging it up at the office, home or whatever.

I would like to have another stream of income doing something I like to do and do anyway and thought this may be doable.

Would I need a model release for any people in the photos? I had no idea this thread would be so popular or emotionally charged. I do appreciate the responses. Very interesting. Thank you.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

And your response is always that following a law is paranoid. You may not like a law, when you don't follow it, you take a risk. Like crossing a street during red light.

The good news is that publishing a person on the internet without release is not so risky where I live. First of all this person or a relative has to find the photo on the internet. Very unlikely. Then the person has to dislike that the photo is on the internet. 50:50 I think. Then they have to mandate a lawyer. Maybe this is too much effort for most. And when a adhortatory letter from a lawyer hits you the costs for you are less then a new Biogon. So the risk should be manageable. This only applies when you don't try to make money with that photo.

Why I would pay and didn't go to court? Because I'm no artist, I don't pay into the social security insurance for artists and I didn't have any art exhibitions. No judge would follow my argument that I published that photo as "fine art".

The original poster we were all replying to is in the United States. The law here explicitly says that releases are not needed for editorial or fine art work. There is no risk. If someone sues, the courts will most likely dismiss the case as having no merit, and if they allowed it to proceed, the photographer would still win.

 

[Bob Michaels]

My experiences with model releases are:

* The potential for the photo disappears during the preliminary discussion about model releases.

* The subject wants to know how much you are going to pay them for their signing a release.

* The subject becomes suspicious and refuses to sign.

* The subject does not understand, so refuses to sign out of caution.

I found model releases to be a insurmountable detriment to photographing people, so have not asked for one in 12 years at least.

 

[DNG]

@68
Chris in post 19 (yours is post 18), has answered your Q

Make a ton money at the Art/Craft weekends....

 

[willie_901]

In the US courts have consistently ruled in favor of the right of expression for any sort of editorial use. It doesn't hurt if the photographer has a track record of exhibiting in juried art shows. This gives credibility to the artistic intent of the photographer. Selling a person's photograph for artistic purposes is not commercial use. Commercial use implies endorsement, advertisement or product enhancement (say a coffee mug with a street photo).

Of course the subject's privacy cannot be invaded nor can the photograph slander them.

Most of all, what are the damages? 99% of the people RFF members photograph could not claim any significant damage. Their image has little if any commercial value.

Google has very deep pockets and corporations with deep pockets are often sued for frivolous reasons just to get a relatively meager cash settlement as settling is cheaper than litigating. Has anyone heard of Google being sued in the US for including people in Google Street View images?

 

[user237428934]

The original poster we were all replying to is in the United States. The law here explicitly says that releases are not needed for editorial or fine art work. There is no risk. If someone sues, the courts will most likely dismiss the case as having no merit, and if they allowed it to proceed, the photographer would still win.

You are absolutely right about the question of the TO. I replied to Roger where he talked about laws in Europe and fine art exceptions.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And your response is always that following a law is paranoid. You may not like a law, when you don't follow it, you take a risk. Like crossing a street during red light.

The good news is that publishing a person on the internet without release is not so risky where I live. First of all this person or a relative has to find the photo on the internet. Very unlikely. Then the person has to dislike that the photo is on the internet. 50:50 I think. Then they have to mandate a lawyer. Maybe this is too much effort for most. And when a adhortatory letter from a lawyer hits you the costs for you are less then a new Biogon. So the risk should be manageable. This only applies when you don't try to make money with that photo.

Why I would pay and didn't go to court? Because I'm no artist, I don't pay into the social security insurance for artists and I didn't have any art exhibitions. No judge would follow my argument that I published that photo as "fine art".

What law are you talking about? And in what country? Following a real law is not paranoid. Following an imaginary law is. The law in France (generally reckoned to have the toughest privacy laws in Europe, if not the world) has gone both ways. For example, a photographer who shot and published a book of pictures of people on the Metro in Paris was held to have been protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no other overarching European law on the subject.

Edit: I love the idea that you have to be a registered, social-security paying, licensed, officially approved 'artist' (highlight 2). Have you any idea what it means to be an artist?

Cheers,

R.